Slow ideas (2013) - <AUTHOR> https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/07/29/slow-ideas <comment><USER2> > Some people criticized anesthesia as a "needless luxury"; clergymen deplored > its use to reduce pain during childbirth as a frustration of the Almighty's > designs.

It's become fashionable to take potshots at Christianity, justified or otherwise.

From a post on internationalskeptics.com[1]

> British science historian Colin A. Russell, in "The Conflict of Science and > Religion" (published in The History of Science and Religion in the Western > Tradition: An Encyclopedia), refers to "the alleged opposition to James > Young Simpson (1811-70) for his introduction of chloroform anesthesia in > midwifery": Quote: Despite repeated claims of clerical harassment, the > evidence is almost nonexistent. Insofar as there was any conflict, it was > between the London and Edinburgh medical establishments or between > obstetricians and surgeons. The origins of that myth may be located in an > inadequately documented footnote in White[.]"

[1] [http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t...](http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39392)

<comment><USER3> >> _It's become fashionable to take potshots at Christianity, justified or otherwise._

Taking potshots at powerful ideologies, especially those with domineering factions, has always been in fashion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Diffusion of Innovations is an established corpus of knowledge. Including, of course, common causes of variation in speeds of adoption.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations)

</comment><comment><USER5> Discussed in 2015: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10175493](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10175493).

</comment><comment><USER6> Inspired by the recent Freakonomics podcast interview with the author Dr Atul Gawande? I recommend listening to it as well if you're interested in an opinion about modern healthcare delivery systems.

[http://freakonomics.com/podcast/atul- gawande/](http://freakonomics.com/podcast/atul-gawande/)

</comment><comment><USER7> Great article. Goes into how to effectively influence people to change.

The biggest takeaway for me is that people who are reluctant to change are going to be more so if they see you as someone trying to find mistakes in what they do. Instead they should see you as a friend.

Very eye-opening, and refreshing reminder that soft skills matter.

</comment><comment><USER8> > _Morton would not divulge the composition of the gas, which he called > Letheon, because he had applied for a patent. But Bigelow reported that he > smelled ether in it (ether was used as an ingredient in certain medical > preparations), and that seems to have been enough. The idea spread like a > contagion, travelling through letters, meetings, and periodicals._

Interesting. I wonder what would have happened if Bigelow didn't say a thing. The way this is put, it looks like yet another case where disregarding "intellectual property" is a net positive for the world.

</comment><comment><USER9> I just wonder how many decades are going to pass before one of those new super batteries, caries vaccines / tooth regeneration techniques or cancer cures invented every year is going to be made available to the people.

BTW did you know that umifenovir (arbidol) has recently been found[1] to be ~100% effective against flaviviruses (that cause e.g. tick-borne encephalitis, dengue fever etc.)? But I doubt American doctors are going to start prescribing it any soon if ever.

[1] [http://www.ceskatelevize.cz/ct24/domaci/2457559-nadejny- cesk...](http://www.ceskatelevize.cz/ct24/domaci/2457559-nadejny-cesky-objev- latka-ktera-se-v-rusku-a-cine-pouziva-na-chripku-likviduje-i)</comment>


Quit my job and go full time web? - <AUTHOR>

I'm just wondering how many programmers here took the plunge and quit their job to pursue thier dreams.
I have a fine job, corporate, amazing pay, but my life is miserable. I come into work every day unmotivated to write Java, or work on the product we are building. I don't even spend the money because I don't know what I need it for. I even still live with my parents because I have no desire to move out (I'm in my 20s). Meanwhile, at the office, I read sites like HN and see startups left and right and feel completely left out.
In my perfect world I would just quit, and spend my days building ruby/comet/js/etc., all the cool stuff, and leave this Java world behind. I already have a knack for it, and want to just try the startup world, but every time I am about to quit, I realize I will have no reliable source of income, and once you get used to that paycheck you really get used to it.
I'm wondering if anyone has success stories, or motivational tips in general or have made the same plunge and do not regret a second of it. What pushed you over the edge? <comment><USER3> I've been in your position, quit, and failed horribly. My primary weakness as a programmer is lack of focus/tendency to get distracted and as such I was forced to recognize that I work best in a (preferably small) company. As such, here's my advice:

Hack after hours and put it on github so people can see the commit history. If you're not motivated enough to write it in the evenings after working a full day, you're probably not going to be motivated enough to do your own startup/freelancing setup successfully.

Once you've made something interesting, find companies that interest you, email them and describe why you're interested in them, that you're looking to get out of the corporate world, and that you made this cool thing, are they or someone they know looking for a programmer. You'll be mostly unsuccessful, but having a job gives you plenty of cushion and it only takes one yes.

If you're really serious, fly out to SF for the YC open house coming up. I have no connection to YC aside from rooming with a guy in the program but can attest that getting an in on the YC network will at least get you under consideration at a bunch of places.

<comment><USER4> I had a similar history. My startup was beset by the fact that 90%+ of the time I was alone. I was the only one doing the coding... and to be honest, it got hard to stay focused. Working with someone, especially who is depending on me, I can work huge days for weeks at a time. Drifting alone for a month at a time... not as much. The experience raised my respect for pair programming tremendously, if nothing else.

Since you mentioned lack of focus/tendency to get distracted - do you ever wonder if you're not "startup material"? I mean this not as an insult, but an honest question, since I know I wonder it. I figure the "startup people" who are stuck in faceless corporate jobs are still working at the insane pace necessary for startup life - if not at work proper, then at home. Is there any truth to that?

What does someone who is "motivated enough" look like when taken out of a motivating setting? Are they typical overachievers throughout life or do they seem lazy without the tremendous urgency of that lifestyle? Some mix of both, something else?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> "but my life is miserable".

Why are you settling for that? You may think the easiest option now is to stay where you are. Sure it's stable but this is probably the best time to actually give your entrepreneurial dreams a shot!

Sure you won't be getting that paycheck but you're not needing that much money at the moment anyway. Plus you still live with your parents so you don't have to worry about rent, food etc. You'll still live.

++ You are still young, in your 20's. It's so much harder to make that plunge when you're 30,40 if you have a mortgage to pay off or a family to support.

What's the worst thing that can happen? You build some cool apps, try to make a business out of them but don't get enough traction? So what? You've taken a correct path in your career by doing something you enjoy. You can always go back to corporate. Plus you tend to meet so many more people if you really immerse yourself in the whole entrepreneurship community.

Take a big breath, quit your job and go do the stuff that makes you tick. By the sounds of it, you're in a pretty good situation to do so right now.

<comment><USER6> +1 for these comments as well. Better to do something crazy now, knowing you can always fall back and recoup your losses, rather than finding yourself down the road with more serious responsibilities you can't ignore at the same job hating yourself/wondering what could have been.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. I think one of my biggest fears I have is the impression that once you leave corporate you can't go back (or it is much harder to go back). Is this even remotely true?

<comment><USER5> As long as you keep developing your own skills as a hacker, you'll still be a valuable hire for any corporate. Experience is experience - whether it be at someone else's company or your own.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've quit a few jobs. In my experience, when you're thinking about quitting and asking other people if you should quit, then it's time to quit. I have tried to stick it out before and I wish I had just quit instead of trying to work through it.

How have things turned out for me?

My last employment gig that I quit was about a year ago now. I quit, then worked for a month full-time on one side project. Then a company I previously worked for needed someone for a few months, so I went back to them at 50% more pay since it was contract.

Then I took another month off to complete another side project. These projects didn't make money so I started looking for some remote, contract work. I found one pretty quickly that was using Zend Framework, which I had experience in due to using it on one the above-mentioned projects. I accepted this, at an increased rate of pay from my previous contract.

Now, that contract is almost up so I'm looking to take time off to work on another idea but am also applying to some contract gigs that interest me. I've sent off three applications so far, and I've had three interviews (the third coming up on Monday). Also, the place I previously worked at/contracted needs someone again for a few months so I have an offer in my back pocket.

As a capable programmer who can take the initiative to build your own stuff, it is incredibly easy to find work. Quitting your first job is the toughest though. But then afterwards, you wonder 'Why was that so difficult?'

This will be a great opportunity to learn more about yourself. If you quit and take time to work on your own stuff, you will learn a TON about your work habits, how productive you are, your focus levels and whether the entrepreneurship route is for you. This is incredibly valuable information to learn about yourself in your 20s. You may find after a few months, that you prefer the structure of the corporate world. Maybe it's tough for you to understand that now, but I can definitely understand why some people would prefer this.

And, if you take time off, build some stuff on your own, and highlight that in your cover letter and resume, it will be very, very easy to find work should you wish to return.

Have fun!

</comment><comment><USER8> I am in a very similar position:

1\. Have an IT Java job that I despise.

2\. Want out of that job to work on my own apps for profit.

3\. Still live with my parents, but am in my early 30s.

I am currently working on these for-profit apps on nights and weekends. It's not easy, as that time goes very quickly. The only reasons I haven't quit my job (as I figured I can always find an equally miserable Java job if I was desperate):

1\. The suckiness of the job can be a great motivator to keep me plugging away on my side projects.

2\. 4 weeks of paid vacation/year means I can afford to go to some interesting developer conferences and quickly recoup the cost. This allows me to get to know people who are already where I want to be.

3\. I can use the paychecks to bootstrap my company-to-be. Not that it takes a lot of money to start a company, but I like the idea of a substantial rainy- day fund.

When I can make enough money from my side business, I'll happily quit the day job. Enough money means I can consistently make around 70% (or more) of my paycheck's gross amount.

Please keep us posted on what you ultimately decide to do.

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow you hit it spot on. I do hack in my weekends/nights but the time just goes by so fast, and it is so draining staying a computer so much of my waking time.

Yeah. I am also saving now so I at least have a small nest egg once I get the guts to take the dive.

I'll let you know what I do for sure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> You and probably a lot of other people aren't going to like this advice, but here it goes...

You're in your 20s with a full time job and _still_ living at home? Fix this immediately.

Honestly it sounds like you need to learn some responsibility. You have a full time job, but you don't like it, so you're going to quit. You have the parents to fall back on.

Maybe a start up will give you responsibility, maybe moving out and financially separating from your parents will give you responsibility. Maybe both with give you double secret responsibility.

I'm actually shocked no one has said this until now. Someone having a full time job but still living with their parents (unless for special circumstances) speaks _volumes_ about their maturity.

Time to start living in the real world. I say jump in and begin your startup. Best case scenario you succeed and end up doing what you love, worst case you took a shot (hopefully one of many) and got out of a job/lifestlye that is making you miserable.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well in my defense I only live at home because I am so confused. My parents are nice about it. I can easily buy/rent but the stopping factor is that I don't know what to do. I am located on the east coast, and want to go to Silicon valley, etc. so I see no reason to invest in a 1-year lease or mortgage if I am trying to change my lifestyle! :o

<comment><USER9> Based on this reply, it sounds like you want the easy way out. It's time to "nut up and make a decision" (Liz Lemmon).

If you want to go to Silicon Valley, go. If you want to stay at home, time to become an adult and not rely on your parents for everything.

Maybe you'll tell me it's the smart way out, but it is a compromise I will not make.

Yes, you can save 6-8 grand each year by living at home, but you're living at home. I _guarantee_ that your friends that went out and are living on their own are mocking you behind your back.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Sounds like you are looking to leave one job to get another job. Take some time to think about why joining an as of yet unknown "startup" would be better than the job you currently have. If you don't know where you would be going, then it might just be filling in imaginary holes.

One of the biggest things that's different between a big corp job and a startup might be that you are "closer to the metal" of the business part. What you do has a much larger effect on the ability for the business to succeed or fail when you are part of a small development team. Perhaps you could go even further and build your own business. This might prepare you better and give you an idea of what it is about a startup that you really would give up your current job for. Perhaps your new business would even do well enough to provide the income when you quit your day job.

</comment><comment><USER11> Not to be too critical, but some of the trailing comments brush on this - <USER2> you turning joining a startup into a strawman cure for a lack of structure, motivation and focus?

I'd grind any bullshit for 22 hours a day if it was heading towards something I wanted badly enough. A change of product, codebase or setting isn't going to suddenly change your internal drive or other subjective factors. Even if you hit a startup thats on cool platform X, it will become background noise to getting something delivered / ploughing through the bug list / etc etc.

Your decision to quit isn't progressing because its arbitrary - you're not leaving your job for any specific reason or because you have a clear goal in mind. If you have a strong reason (eg, passion for a project, monetary goal, cancer, whatever), decisions like this normally happen pretty fast.

</comment><comment><USER12> Not quite the same thing, but I'm leaving a PhD program that's been making me miserable to join a small supercomputing company. In my opinion, being happy trumps everything.

Keep in mind, though, that you have more choices than your current job and a risky startup. There are undoubtedly other stable jobs out there that might make you happy.

If you do decide to strike out on a startup, use your amazing-paying job to save up a bit and give yourself a good runway. This might help you be less miserable all on its own, as working towards _any_ goal you find meaningful may lift your spirits.

</comment><comment><USER6> I didn't see a word about /what/ you want to build. Most people leave their jobs and pursue startup life, which is not glamorous, because they have a burning, necessary passion to build something and solve a problem. And it's that passion that will get you through the ups and downs of startup life.

That said, if you just want to build cool stuff using new technology, there's always the chance you could just up and move to SFO and get a job /at/ a startup depending on your skill-set.

</comment><comment><USER13> You say you have a fine job and amazing pay. Why quit? I would quit when my startup is earning more than my current job.

What do you do when you are at home? You can spend your extra/free time on your startup until it grows big enough. At least you only have to work 8 hours a day. In my previous job I worked 9.6 hours a day :P

(Disclaimer: I quit my job almost a year ago but I have not gone fulltime doing web apps. I still enjoy coding while at home. I found a new hobby. :) )

</comment><comment><USER14> Since you have no significant financial obligations (and I'm assuming some good savings), this sounds like the best possible time to get out there and try something. I did it at 30 (after a layoff) with a mortgage and a car payment, and it was ridiculously hard.

<comment><AUTHOR> Did good come out of your move though? Or are you still looking right now?

<comment><USER14> I sold my company, took a job working for someone else, and I'm now actively planning to start another company. The reason I suggested that you're in a good position is because most of the issues I had were cashflow-related - having to cover my existing expenses on substantially reduced income (I had to pick up all kinds of distracting side projects to pay the bills). If you're living at home and you have healthy savings, you can really focus on building the product.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Echo those other comments, I'm in a similar scenario. My email's in my profile if you want to exchange ideas. My thoughts: happiness comes from loving what you do. I guess you have to choose the right moment and hopefully find something you love.

</comment><comment><USER16> For those of you who quit and then returned back to the work force, did you have any difficulty finding work or explaining the gap in employment to potential employers?</comment>


How America just lost 1 million green(ish) jobs to Europe - <AUTHOR> http://www.grist.org/business-technology/2011-06-29-how-america-just-lost-one-million-greenish-jobs-to-europe

<comment><USER2> Its amazing that there has been proven fact that alternative resources can produce so much more energy for so much less money and yet our government sits ere and listens to the oil giants.</comment>


Need help recovering stolen URL from Steam - <AUTHOR>

Last year my wife bought AOE IIHD we played it a lot, all of the sudden she wasn't able to login so we tried a reset password, the link never came I opened a ticket with Steam Support they said they couldn't find the account I provided them with the steam account name + original password a photo ID + CC info used for the purchase, they are still unable to find her account months after. After a simple Google search I've found that her account was hacked by finding her login info on a Russian forum http://zhyk.ru/forum/showthread.php?p=4751137
What will it take for her to get her account and games back
https://support.steampowered.com/view.php?ticketref=1113-QPHM-1167 <comment><USER2> Why are you asking here? If Valve (Steam) can't find the account, then the hackers took it over, did whatever they did with it and most likely then deleted it. You might check the credit card associated with the account to see if any other games were bought from that account. They could have been purchased and transferred to another account. As for recovering the one you had? Forget it and start a new one.</comment>


Coding Horror: Rethinking Design Patterns - <AUTHOR> http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000899.html <comment><USER2> Anything that encourages ideological movements among ignorant people is bad, and design patterns do just that, from what I've seen.

I've seen grown men spend hours and hours and hours talking about AbstractFactory patterns. I've seen, to a degree, that your ability to discuss the implementation of AbstractFactories can influence your reputation more than the software that actually gets created.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've been hearing a lot of criticism against GoF lately, and I think now I understand why: IMHO I believe that since the past decade or so we moved up one step above the "complexity chain". Nowadays we hugely rely on frameworks to develop code, and therefore we don't need to think in terms of design patterns as much as before. However, one level down in this chain (at the framework level) design patterns are heavily used behind the scenes. Even at the language level (iterators, for example, came from GoF).

In summary, nowadays we don't need to rely on design patterns so heavily, but the frameworks we use still rely on them.

</comment><comment><USER4> I think you'd really have to botch things if you ended up with code that was MORE boilerplate after utilizing design patterns. By their very nature they are intended to promote highly cohesive and lowly coupled code..

<comment><USER5> The real issue hackers have with members of the Design Patterns cult (other than the ridiculous jargon) is the notion that complex, generalized patterns are ALWAYS better than simple, specific solutions to a problem.</comment></comment>


A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy - <AUTHOR> http://shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html <comment><USER2> Thank you for sharing this. This is an absolutely brilliant reflexion on group dynamics.</comment>


Evend – Find matching startup and tech events near you - <AUTHOR> http://evend.co/index/

<comment><USER2> Will this be an app or something after launching?

<comment><AUTHOR> Most online people are probably registered in more than 30 services or web apps and are using at least 10 on a daily basis.

We know that this is time-consuming and won't get better over the next years. That's why evend will go the Email first approach (Ryan Hoover, Founder of Product Hunt has written some amazing articles about that) to deliver our community proper content without taking too much of their time.

That means: no need to register (except for our newsletter) or keep-up-to-date profiles.</comment></comment>


Use shortcuts to create new Google Docs and more from the URL bar - <AUTHOR> https://support.google.com/a/users/answer/9308871?hl=en&dark=0 <comment><AUTHOR> I hate going to drive.google.com to create a new doc and was about to build a shortcut for myself, but it turns out that Chrome already has these built in!

        docs.new
        sheets.new
        slides.new
        forms.new

<comment><USER2> Not just chrome, going to the above links from any browser will open a new doc. :))</comment></comment>


The One Question Most Americans Get Wrong About College Graduates - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/03/upshot/up-college-unemployment-quiz.html <comment><USER2> Thought log on seeing the question:

-Common wisdom: unemployment with a college degrees is lower than without one.

-Seeing the question asked about that common wisdom.

-Most plausible reason for such a question to exist at all is that the common wisdom is false.

-Therefore, answer that the unemployment with a college degree is higher than without it.

-Read the rest of the article. Nope, that was backwards.

I wonder if that's a common line of thought for the people who were asked, or if it's just me.</comment>


Speed Up Google Fonts - <AUTHOR> https://hackernoon.com/speed-up-google-fonts-8f7e65e6327b <comment><AUTHOR> Hope you like the article.</comment>


Ask HN: How should I replace my dead Chumby? - <AUTHOR>

Woke this morning to no alarm! My Chumby is dead, alas, alack! My main use of it was as a highly configurable alarm, and clock. I know that was a lame use of it, but for those tasks, it was truly head and shoulders above normal alarm clocks.<p>I guess the TL;DR is what type of device can replace my Chumby as a small, highly configurable, and simple alarm clock? <comment><USER2> [http://www.adafruit.com/blog/2012/07/11/2012-android- develop...](http://www.adafruit.com/blog/2012/07/11/2012-android-development- kit/)

</comment><comment><USER3> An original Motorola Droid, with dock? I see one on ebay for 35 bucks.</comment>


Porn Sites Still Won't Take Down Nonconsensual Deepfakes - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/porn-sites-still-wont-take-down-non-consensual-deepfakes/#intcid=_wired-homepage-right-rail_15cd1a7d-8dd5-45bc-819e-068f5707d7b1_popular4-1 <comment><USER3> Is there a clear bright-line between a cartoon or South Park-style animation, a hand-drawn photorealistic graphic, and a ML-generated one that should be legislated differently than existing laws against commercial usage of somebody's likeness vs fair use?

If so, what is that bright-line, and what unforeseen consequences might legislating it have?

I recognize the limits on regulating free speech are weaker in the UK where this story originated as opposed to in the US.

<comment><USER4> There doesn't have to be a clear bright line, even when the law seems clear the reality is many times fuzzy. This is why we have judges, to make a ruling in the spirit of the law. In this case, if the likeliness is close enough then it's forbidden.

<comment><USER5> "I know it when I see it!" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobellis_v._Ohio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobellis_v._Ohio)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What a weird and misleading article. I assume it was written by that "deepfake detection company Sensity" to drum up business, but it certainly doesn't seem to be well-researched.

As is, it is already illegal to use Emma Watson's "likeness" without her approval in pretty much every western country, including the EU and the Czech republic. "likeness" here means that the fake is good enough for regular people to recognize the actress.

For example, see Midler vs. Ford: [http://rightofpublicity.com/pdf/cases/midler.pdf](http://rightofpublicity.com/pdf/cases/midler.pdf)

The article continues: "Until there is a strong reason for [porn websites] to try to take them down and to filter them, I strongly believe nothing is going to happen," Patrini says.

Obviously. That "strong reason" is called a lawsuit and is pretty easy to organize. You might even sue for punitive damages and recoup your legal costs, meaning a celebrity successfully suing might be as expensive as $350,000 per video. I'd say that is a very strong reason to take things down, if - <USER2> apparently only if - the person requesting the takedown is following legal procedures.

<comment><USER7> Would this also apply to real porn actresses who happen to look like Emma Watson?

<comment><USER6> [https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/intellectual-property- la...](https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/intellectual-property- law/intellectual-property-keyed-to-merges/state-intellectual-property-law-and- federal-preemption/midler-v-ford-motor-co/)

"Under California law, intentional imitation of a celebrity's distinctive and widely known voice for commercial purposes constitutes tortious misappropriation."

Intentional is the key word here. So I presume that if you look like Emma Watson and go with your real name, you're fine. If you pretend to be Emma Watson, then it becomes infringing.

<comment><USER7> So then ostensibly a deepfake that is clear that it's not actually Emma Watson (not pretending) and therefore only sharing a likeness would be legal?

<comment><USER6> Depends on your intention. If you produce the video with the intent to profit off her fame, and that will certainty be assumed if you use her name in the tags or keywords, then it's clearly illegal.

But if the video says "this is a deepfake" and is not showing up in search results for her name, then it should be fine.

Its just that in the latter case, probably nobody is going to watch it, so the discussion is then moot anyway.

<comment><USER8> In the latter case users could write the name in comments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> barry-cotter The kinds of people who work for Pornhub aren't going to have moral qualms about this[1] and there's no way you can ban deep fakes as such under the First Amendment. Either there will be regulation of porn on grounds of obscenity or the current free for all will continue but there's no way deep fakes will be banned and the rest of porn left alone.

[1] [https://fightthenewdrug.org/pornhub-refused-to-remove- videos...](https://fightthenewdrug.org/pornhub-refused-to-remove-videos-of- this-minors-sexual-assault/)

[https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/stories-51391981](https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/stories-51391981)

<comment><USER6> Your source [1] doesn't exactly appear neutral.

I got a popup that said "PORN KILLS LOVE" TM copyright by "Fight the New Drug, Inc" and then I thought "ooh this is propaganda" and didn't actually read the article.

<comment><USER9> That source does suck, but this has happened to multiple women.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The article mentions a Czech holding company owning some of these sites. The amount of porn, both straight and gay, produced in Czech Republic is astounding. You can't live in Prague without being harassed by the industry. I received a cease and desist letter for physically pushing some porn producers harassing people on the busiest street in Prague.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/arhzub/pornstars_pe...](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/arhzub/pornstars_per_capita_in_europe/)

<comment><USER11> Why is there so much porn in Czech Republic?

<comment><USER12> [https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=+Why+is+there+so+much+porn+...](https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=+Why+is+there+so+much+porn+in+Czech+Republic%3F+&ia=web)

 _edit: not trying to be snarky, there are some good links above the fold._

<comment><USER11> Wow, that is amazing, thanks

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> As a regular porn watcher myself and in many cases a defender of free speech (except in the case of hate speech coming from fascists) I still have to admit that the destructive capability of deep fakes of public figures is deeply concerning. Female politicians like AOC should not have to deal with malicious actors spreading pornographic deep fakes. Some may remember the countless lewd doctored photos of Hillary Clinton that spread in conservative circles. It only stands to reason that this helped the current president win, and in general makes it harder for all female politicians to win. This doesn't seem to affect male politicians nearly to the same degree.

Simultaneously these porn companies are making exorbitant amounts of money from obviously illegal content. Something needs to be done but at the same time I worry this could be a political opportunity for a conservative to push forward an internet censorship bill.

<comment><USER14> While this is abhorrent, the likely end result is people will stop trusting video they see online. That combined with sites like thispersondoesnotexist.com might actually increase the personal privacy of people online. We might end up in a state where employers stop researching candidates from their apparent Facebook profiles.

<comment><USER15> This view seems dangerously, irresponsibly, optimistic.

<comment><USER16> Really? To me, it seems not optimistic but inevitable. I don't think anyone believes Emma Watson has actually done a porn, despite her appearing in the deepfake mentioned in the article. Being deepfaked is unlikely to affect anyone's real-world prospects in any way. That being said I can understand that it would still be hurtful and I'm open to having the content more tightly regulated.

<comment><USER15> I just don't understand how anyone can live in the same world I do and have anything nice to say about the average person's credulity.

<comment><USER16> Are you saying that you think folks believe Emma Watson has done a porn, or something else? I mean, the claim I'm making is empirical. If you went out and asked people, you could know the answer.

<comment><USER15> You have made two claims directly, and asserted their equivalence for a third claim.

People have not seen the Emma Watson porn, and those that have can probably read the word deepfake in the title. My guess is between 5% and 20% of the people who have seen it, and found it through searching for Emma Watson, rather than Emma Watson Deepfake believe that they have seen actual Emma Watson in porn.

But ultimately, you said that you didn't believe that it was irresponsible to assert that deepfakes will society more skeptical of video. That is your claim. I pose that deepfakes can easily be used to produce videos which are closer to what their audiences expect than reality, and as a result they will likely be _less_ suspicious of what they see.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> ur-whale I wonder what the law says when the "fake" is produced by a human artist, typically a hand drawing or a "hand-made" 3D model of an unwilling subject.

<comment><USER5> It's because the deep fake is literally trying to be a forgery of a real pornographic act where a hand drawing is obviously not a forgery or a real pornographic act

<comment><USER17> Have fun trying to get a legal definition for that. The evil machine just copies what it has seen before to create a composite, while the human 3D-artist just draws from what they know. Not to mention that the rules around what's considered 'art' is extremely murky; e.g. the band Scorpions feature a nude minor on one of their album-covers which is fine "because art" while people have gone to jail for having hentai featuring underage fictional characters.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The ability to create a realistic pornographic photo using someone else's likeness has been around for a long time; why does the medium of video make things different? We've got to let go of our notion that video is reality and can't be faked. The time when that was true is definitely gone.

<comment><USER19> There's a difference between being possible and trivial. What once required professional artists can now be done by kids with lots of free time. That changes the dynamic and new problems arise.

<comment><USER20> This is just the progression of technology.

Photoshop made a lot of stuff accessible that previously wasn't.

In a few decades, we'll merely tell the computers what we want to see and they'll make it for us.

In fifty, they'll infer what we want and dynamically adjust.

In a hundred years, all reality will be constructed.

The trend is bigger and more important than the fear.

<comment><USER19> Sure, and Photoshop doesn't allow you to scan money, for instance. It's still possible to counterfeit, just a bit harder.

We can choose to embrace this change or take measures to make it less trivial.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> So it seems to me that there are two types of people: those who don't care if they're seen naked and those who do. Among those who don't care, this wouldn't be a problem, and for those that do, this actually works in their favor if it becomes widespread: if their personal pictures are leaked, they have perfect plausible deniability.

<comment><USER22> Many who are willing to appear naked expect to be paid for it, just as an athlete who lets his image be used in an ad isn't giving everyone else permission to photoshop his image into their ads for free.

<comment><USER23> > Many who are willing to appear naked expect to be paid for it

Reddit would demonstrate otherwise. As would Burning Man, nude beaches, and any number of other locations where nudity is allowed/expected.</comment></comment></comment>


Spain leads the world in organ donation. What's stopping other countries? - <AUTHOR> https://mosaicscience.com/story/spain-uk-organ-donation-transplants-liver-kidney-heart-lungs-surgery-nhs/ <comment><USER2> Goodhart's law: When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.

Spain is at the top of the ranking because the medical staff have a huge economic incentive to convince donors/family (2k euros) and conduct transplants (e.g. from 10K euros to 15K euros for a liver transplant). The Spanish model has been criticized for many years for being a shady procedure controlled by even a shadier organization that is barely regulated by the government. When the success of the transplant is taken into account Spain loses a lot of places. Spain is at the bottom of Europe in terms of blood donation. The Spanish Model is definitely not one to be imitated.

[https://elpais.com/elpais/2018/06/22/opinion/1529691789_6524...](https://elpais.com/elpais/2018/06/22/opinion/1529691789_652478.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> I think what's stopping other countries is that only one can be at the top of a relative ranking.

<comment><USER4> But there's nothing that stops countries from being within 5% of each other at top of that ranking. The main point is the large difference between the countries.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> My first thought has always been to just make it mandatory, or at the very least opt-out instead of opt-in.

I realize those are both very controversial, so I wonder why we don't have a monetary incentive.

i.e. We will pay $1000 for every organ of yours we take to a person you nominate.

<comment><USER6> If you ask a lay person from any human culture how do you know when a person is dead I think you would get similar answers along the lines of:

\- no heartbeat \- no breath \- their body temperature falls to ambient temperature \- blood pools on lower half of body \- onset of decomposition \- etc

When organs are removed from a person for donation, none of those conditions apply. In order to accommodate this fact the concept of brain death was created. But really brain death is an example of taking a word representing an ancient and well understood concept, death, and applying it to something completely new.

Really it's a form of deception. I don't think it's a malicious deception but when the doctor comes in and says your loved one is brain dead that person is not dead in the ways understood by a typical person.

I'm in favor of organ donation in general but until the medical community has some very frank discussions about the medical definitions of death I'm opposed to any form of mandatory or opt-out organ donation.

<comment><USER5> A friend from University has spent the last ~15 years working in the organ donation site of ER medicine.

They actually spend more time trying to revive a donor and doing everything they possibly can because of misconceptions like what you said above. She is quite certain that if anything, being a donor actually increases the likelihood of you being revived by medical staff, who would much rather revive you than have to deal with people telling them they didn't try hard enough.

<comment><USER7> That implies that ER personnel can tell organ donors from non-donors apart. Is there any evidence that they can?

<comment><USER5> Given the donor team are usually standing right outside the door waiting, I would say they know.

<comment><USER7> That seems like a bad situation. It can cause rumors like that hospital staff doesn't try as hard to save donor patients because they can harvest their organs can spread.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think this is great for them. I think that depending on national culture, a person may want to die with what they came into this world with. I know that some world religions are against the practice. I say this with full realization that some folks will read that and think "how selfish!!" Regardless of any of our beliefs, organ donation is a very personal choice.

Personally, I wouldn't go about the issue by shaming nations that don't belief in the practice. I would instead go about it by having a campaign of information on the life saving benefits of helping others. Undoubtedly someone will tell me that these campaigns exists, but I'd say they don't do a good enough job yet.

<comment><USER9> _a person may want to die with what they came into this world with._

Reminds me of the grandmother in Uri Orlev's book, who insisted on burning every fingernail clipping, as otherwise their souls would be stuck on Earth seeking for them after death.

In the end, nobody old enough to make that decision dies with what they came with - the body changes too much over the years. But then again, we allow everyone to destroy their organs with drugs, dangerous sports, sitting for most of the day, etc. It would be hypocritical to deny others the equivalent choice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Organ donation attracts a lot of scum elements and dubious practices which require government policy frameworks and oversight. Then the hospitals need to confirm to a lot of paperwork/trail which is cumbersome. If i'm waiting for a kidney, i can wait in a queue to receive it from someone who's dying or i can "bring my own donor", maybe a relative. Is the relative really related to me or have i lured him/her with money.

See, not as simple as it sounds.

<comment><USER11> What is the problem exactly with buying a kidney?

<comment><USER12> Money is persuasive, but can also buy coercive.

If there are no boundaries or rule structures, then the incentives often (always?) bleed into some involved party not having a choice, or a Hobson's choice.

<comment><USER9> Is having an Hobson's choice worse than having no choice at all?

Someone having to choose between selling a kidney or starving is terrible. But the solution shouldn't be to deny the first option - that just leaves starving. It should be to give them a third option.

That said, obviously "no rules" would still be dangerous, but no legal sale is done without any rules.

<comment><USER13> Yeah, but I think in this case there's an issue where the choosing party lacks the ability to make an informed decision. The risk-weighted long-term medical costs of removing a kidney (in less-than-ideal operating conditions!) and living with just one (probably in an environment where kidneys work overtime due to low-quality resources!) make it a rather expensive proposition. It would've been easier to scrap/work/beg for food than for the potential medical after-care they'll need over time, in terms of the total long-term cost of maintaining their life and/or health levels. But those that understand this are withholding that level of understanding and forcing it to look like a rational Hobson's choice to the donor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> What is the bottleneck to organ donation? 46 out of 1 million seems atrocious, not laudable. How many people are willing to donate but medically unable?

<comment><USER15> They main bottleneck besides opt-in laws in some countries are the average age of the deseased. You really want young healthy accidental deaths, car or motorcycle accidents are the best. You don't that care much about older organs of sick people.

The second most important factor is good organization and infrastructure. That's Spain's and now also Croatia's strength. You really need to be able to transport the organ fast and cool to the next hospital where the organ is needed. And you need to have the recipient on call also, who should not have eaten something in the last 6 hours.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is one of those interesting questions where almost all laymen agree it should be altruistic, and almost all economists, from every school of thought including Marxism, agree there should be a market.

Iran is currently the only country with a legal organ market. It also happens to be the only country with no shortages or wait lists. Both facts were true in India and The Philippines until the sale of organs was prohibited in those countries in 1994 and 2008 respectively.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidney_trade_in_Iran](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidney_trade_in_Iran)

<comment><USER7> There are clearly some ethical concerns with creating an open market for organs. The Israeli system I think is a great compromise. In Judaism, corpses are sacred so even autopsies can be controversial in some circles. Therefore the organ donor rate was very low. The solution? Whoever is a registered organ donor receives priority over those who aren't. Since there are so few organ donors in Israel, having priority is crucial and can mean the difference between life and death. Therefore the number of organ donors have skyrocketed. I think it is an ingenious system.

[https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and- politics/164976/is...](https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and- politics/164976/israel-organ-donation)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> A thing to be very proud of

</comment><comment><USER18> Am I the only one not so very enthuastic about organ donation ? Except for cornea, it means a life long of heavy immunosuppressive treatments (which are not free afaik), leading to higher cancer rates and many other side effects. Things are rarely a pure win, there are downsides (even though they are suspiciously rarely mentioned). I don't think we have such a shortage of people that we have to save every and each one no matter the cost.

So yes, I for one am not interested at all by donating my organs (here it is an opt out). I'd rather be dissected, as I learned a lot on (in my case animal) cadavers.

<comment><USER19> Your argument seems to be that surviving an otherwise incurable illness has .. downsides?

<comment><USER20> I dont have a source for this, but I've been told a couple times that doctors who get cancer tend to decline chemotherapy/treatment because of what the treatments do to the body. It was described as aging your body to a frail old person (not matter what your initial age was), that is not reversible.

Or think about this on the extreme end: I think many people would choose a time to die peacefully rather than sit in a semi-vegetable state in a hospital bed for the rest of their life.

<comment><USER21> > _" [...] I've been told a couple times that doctors who get cancer tend to > decline chemotherapy/treatment [...] [Chemotherapy] was described as aging > your body to a frail old person (not matter what your initial age was), that > is not reversible"_

Maybe in some cases, but as an overall statement it seems seriously misinformed. Not all cancers or their treatments are the same. My mom had breast cancer surgery followed by chemotherapy and it certainly didn't age her or make her body frail.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


1985 home automation system - <AUTHOR> http://imgur.com/a/Jb6jW/layout/horizontal#0

<comment><USER2> It seems that the touch screen uses infrared LEDs. Light reflects off of the finger when it comes near the screen, but I don't see any sort of receptors which would capture that reflection. Can anyone shed some light on this? (Pun only partially intended)

<comment><USER3> The clear bulbs are the lights the black ones are the receptors. When you put your finger to the screen, your finger blocks the light to the receptors.</comment></comment>


Whitelist Your Routes, "match" is Evil - <AUTHOR> http://homakov.blogspot.com/2012/04/whitelist-your-routes-match-is-evil.html Proposal to make "match" deprecated because it is useless and insecure. <comment><USER2> This reads like one of those ransom notes from the movies where each letter is cut out of a different magazine, so I don't quite get what he's saying.

Instead of writing:

        do_thing()

He's suggesting you write:

        if(preconditions_are_met())
            do_thing()

?

Sounds good to me.

<comment><AUTHOR> in a nutshell - something like this.

I propose ALWAYS specify HTTP verb for action - because you always know which way controller#action should be used. If you dont - you are doing it wrong.

<comment><USER2> Cool. You might want to use less bold text, BTW :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha :) +1 I have very poor vocabulary - and use bold to emphasize important points. Thanks for pointing it out - I will extend my vocab.

<comment><USER3> Also, could you tone down the site theme? The scrolling sidebar/topbar etc is really buggy and keeps getting in the way of your text. I'd suggest just using jekyll or something with Github pages or maybe just run your own HTTP server to serve it up.

<comment><AUTHOR> I use blogspot because of slash dot effects. theme is really buggy, shame on blogger. Changed to simple one.

<comment><USER3> Fair enough, that was my biggest gripe anyways.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> They're not new attact vectors but I enjoy Egor's posts and call outs. If you're a web dev making these mistakes then you need to take the time to learn about basic web security. You can't count on frameworks to abstract it all away for you, you have to understand how it works.

The same CSRF rules apply to GET and POST requests. If you're using proper CSRF protection it doesn't really matter if you do a GET or POST. The only real difference is that GET requests will be visible to every piece of hardware between the user and your server whether you're using SSL or not and will most likely be logged. Also you can upload files via POST.

While it's easier to make users send harmful GET requests by putting the URL in an image you can simply use JS to POST a hidden form. Thinking POST is inherently more secure is a false assumption. Both are equally vulnerable to CSRF.

<comment><USER5> Just FYI, the entire HTTP request is encrypted with SSL, including the URL. Otherwise <https://www.google.com/?q=sensitive+query> would be pretty pointless!

<comment><USER4> Oops, you're right. The only data exposed would be the hostname and port. Any query data would be encrypted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Egon, any chance you'll take a look at Django and give it the same level of scrutiny you are giving to rails?

Currently I'm feeling very superior about how my framework is more secure than yours, but I'd love to see you shoot down that silly notion.

<comment><USER7> I think the fact that Django's url mapper doesn't make it easy to dispatch based on the method means that Django wouldn't score to highly against this particular issue. It's easy to put

        if request.method not in ('POST', 'PUT', 'DELETE', 'PATCH'):
            ...

at the top of every method (or use a decorator), but it'd definitely be nice if this were part of the url dispatcher.

<comment><USER6> This is true, but at the same time Django doesn't make it easy to mix up get and post params. Calling request.POST['param'] will raise an exception on a GET request.

Finding rails issues and then saying "they kinda sorta apply to Django" isn't as interesting as finding real Django issues.

<comment><USER7> request.REQUEST? Admittedly, people don't use it that much, but it's definitely there.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for this information! Really, it is $_REQUEST as in PHP.

To yummyfajitas - your message is 50% trolling. Will you allow me to troll a little bit? I used django and scrapy few years ago and despite the fact it was better than PHP I would not even dare to compare it with Rails. Rails is that superior I don't even have words to explain it :D Conclusion: I'm not interested in Django and its bug because I love rails and wanna make it more secure anyways. Sorry, but Django is way less convinient to use. Security is another story though.

<comment><USER6> Sorry, I didn't intend to sound like I was trolling, my comment "I'm feeling very superior" was intended to be facetious.

Also, if you ever manage to put into words why you prefer Rails, I'd love to read it. Django and rails seem pretty similar to me, but I didn't put much effort into learning rails. But maybe I'm just experiencing the blub paradox.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Would love to see some more information on best practices for routing. I've always used <http://guides.rubyonrails.org/routing.html> as a go-to resource on routing, and it uses 'match' statements throughout. Is the suggestion here to just change all match statements to the intended REST verb?

<comment><USER9> The only thing I don't like about the Rails routing guide is how much it talks about having a default route of `match ':controller/:action/:id'`. I would still use `match`, but any actions that are meant to be posts should add `:method => :post` to them. And ideally use `resources` where ever it makes sense.

<comment><AUTHOR> Fix: not :method but :via :)

And, again! PLEASE use method "data" instead of match :via => method. It's much better and looks clean.

<comment><USER10> In exactly what sense do you think that's better?

<comment><AUTHOR> it does absolutely same job(you can read sources) but requires less symbols and looks RESTful - fair enough, isn't it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> _But all rails 2.3 apps use map.connect == are vulnerable(holy shi~!)_

Rails 2.3 had "verify :method => :post" which was supposed to be used in controllers. This is nothing new.

<comment><AUTHOR> call me a bad coder but when I used rails 2.3 I had never seen it in production code. I was too young though - may be you're right.

Anyways rails 2.3 had no csrf protection

<comment><USER11> _call me a bad coder but when I used rails 2.3 I had never seen it in production code._

Ok, then you're a bad coder. All Rails applications I've ever worked on had those checks and the documentation for Rails made it pretty clear that verify :method should be used for non-GET requests.

 _Anyways rails 2.3 had no csrf protection_

You really need to check your facts. Rails has had protect_from_forgery since at least 2.2 and it was enabled by default in ApplicationController. Rails < 2.3.10 did not do the verification for AJAX requests, but this was changed in 2.3.11.

Added in 2007: [https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/4e3ed5bc44f6cd20c9e353...](https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/4e3ed5bc44f6cd20c9e353ab63fd24b92a7942be) and made the default shortly after.

<comment><AUTHOR> Appreciate your info! Really, I messed with facts - in 2011 it was made for AJAX :) You are right!

Ops FIX: you should call bad coder not me but people whom code I had been reading years ago.

And anyways burke is right: >Supposed to be, but rarely was. Throw a bunch of new programmers at a framework, and insecure-by-default becomes insecure.

btw verify method: :post is nice to have but obviously uglier than current routes.rb DSL.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Security aside, the catchall routing directive is a maintenance nightmare. The router is precisely where you should catch buggy routes, as well as document valid ones so they come up in rake routes.

</comment><comment><USER13> blogger and tons of javascript loading wheels.. I just want to read som text, google how hard can it bee!!!?

<comment><AUTHOR> blogger fail. changed to simple theme</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What are your first steps in setting up a new Mac? - <AUTHOR> I just got a new Macbook for work, and I'm just wondering what you guys typically do when setting up a brand new computer (when you're not just transferring everything from your old one).
I know my very first step will be to install Mathias's Dotfiles[1], but I'm not sure where to go next. Thoughts?
1. https://github.com/mathiasbynens/dotfiles <comment><USER2> Homebrew. Now they are merging Caskroom upstream this is a one-stop shop for installing stuff.</comment>


How To Silence A Computer - <AUTHOR> http://www.quietpcusa.com/how-to-silence-a-computer.aspx <comment><USER2> That article appears to have been written in 2004. The state of the art has moved on.

The best quiet computing resource on the web is www.silentpcreview.com. They've been fanatical about noise reduction for a decade. It's not hard, using SPCR's techniques, to build a PC that is simply inaudible at any distance in any environment.

</comment><comment><USER3> Or minimize the number of spinning elements to one giant fan. Everything except power supplies you can get in passively cooled versions. SSDs instead of HDDs and if you need storage get the slow spinning ones. Then you can keep the case open and it's still silent.

<comment><USER4> There are also passive power supplies <http://www.silentpcreview.com/fanless- psu-build-guide></comment></comment>


Why working on a side project is your best move as a developer - <AUTHOR> https://medium.freecodecamp.org/why-working-on-a-side-project-is-your-best-move-as-a-developer-3b5b68035ac6 <comment><USER2> Working on a side project that you will also actively use makes it much more attractive! Example : I play no limit holdem at my spare time and I am really disappointed that the majority of poker software is for windows only. So I am trying to develop the web-version of Flopzilla([http://www.flopzilla.com](http://www.flopzilla.com)) by using modern tech - angular on the front-end, python for the back-end, et cetera.

<comment><USER3> That's really cool! I used PokerStrategy's equity calculator for a long time and must have thought "hey, I should build one of those to learn how Monte Carlo works" around 100 times.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've found that my perfect balance is just 30 mins a night, 4 nights a week.

Its a short enough session that I can fit it in without resenting having to do it and miss out on family stuff.

I normally go into the session thinking that I cannot be bothered but usually walk away having enjoyed it and I definitely feel the benefit of it at work.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'd much rather see people doing side projects than studying Cracking the Code Interview.

<comment><USER6> Agree! I bought that book (Cracking the Coding Interview) just to see what the fuss was about it. That thing is massive, dense, and has enough sample problems to keep a person busy for hundreds of hours...

Those hundreds of hours are way better spent building a side project...and will speak volumes more than trudging through a book to help you "hack" the technical interview.

<comment><USER7> This is the struggle and the reality of the competition. You have CTCI and leecode on top of that. Plus, to stand out with recruiters, you also want to contribute to open source code and/or have side projects. All of this on top of full-time school and a part-time job was extremely overwhelming. Now that I'm working full-time it's much more manageable.

Also, luck is hugely important during the interview process of your interviewer and the questions you get.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'd love to be able to think of a side project I'm actually enthused to work on. I don't know if I'm burning out but nothing really seems interesting enough to me to put the effort in.

<comment><USER9> I highly recommend taking up a musical instrument, learning a new language, or training for a 5k/marathon.

<comment><USER8> I should definitely try and get fit. Music and languages are beyond me unfortunately!

<comment><USER9> I thought so too, but it's rewarding to make progess!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I have yet to find a personal project which I am legitimately interested in doing. Time and time again I'll simply start the project, do 30-60 minutes and then never look at it again. The whole process isn't something I find enjoyable unless I'm working with someone else.

A difficult problem I come across in work is something I cannot bare to do in my spare time, and it's rather annoying as I used to really enjoy programming when I didn't know how to do it.

<comment><USER11> I spent a lot of time looking at sites like betalist and producthunt in hopes of finding some interesting projects.

But they all seem so forced and artificial and hype marketing garbage.

Reading online discussions I get the impression that everyone's working on such useful products but I'm not seeing the projects around.</comment></comment>


Forget Cuil, check this out: one guy and a bunch of pcs - <AUTHOR> http://gigablast.com/

<comment><USER2> From the about page: _"Now Gigablast has grown to several, highly-talented employees"_ So not quite one guy.

That said, after having read some of the comments on the page I think we should cut the guy (or guys) some slack. As jacquesm's link points out 55% of users in a double blind study found gigablast better than Google. We're talking about a couple of guys matching, and maybe beating, one of the worlds biggest software companies at their own game. A couple of guys matching Google's thousands of employees and thousands of servers.

In a word I think they're absolutely fucking awesome and deserve total and absolute respect.

<comment><USER3> If they are better than google and nobody cares, that is a frightening thought.

<comment><USER4> Are they better than google at search (which is what I think you meant)?

Can they scale what they have to serve the number of SERPs that Google serves? Can they do that cost effectively? Can their algorithms produce as useful results in the face of "optimisations" by 10's of thousands of SEO/SEMs across the globe?

I'm guessing no.

My wife makes the most awesome gingerbread men (and brownies) but that doesn't mean she can put Greggs out of business.

Still props too them, they're doing something awesome.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I interviewed there once. Smart people; demanding, too. By that, I mean that I'm sure all of you would find it to be a rewarding and challenging workplace.

They made it clear that there was no VC money. Classic bootstrap. Matt wrote most of the original code base himself. I seem to remember they had at least several employees.

<comment><USER6> Ah yeah, the old work-for-equity scam. Classic sign that the company is going nowhere.

<comment><USER7> What make you assumed that bootstrapping company does work-for-equity scam? There are always other ways of bringing in money without venture funds.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> In terms of relevance there seems to be a tie between gigablast and cuil (according to my highly unscientific study). And google search is still better. And I like cuil's design more.

<comment><AUTHOR> In '08 they did a double blind study comparing gigablast with google and two thirds of the users preferred gigablast.

It's a dated study of course, and I can't find a reference for it (which doesn't help) but it impressed me quite a bit.

edit: found a link: [http://www.searchenginejournal.com/gigablast-better-than- goo...](http://www.searchenginejournal.com/gigablast-better-than-google-or- askcom-according-to-study/6551/)

I misremembered the percentage though, not 66 but 55.

<comment><USER9> This study has an inherent flaw: the queries used were selected from the most common queries. Answering common queries is (relatively) easy, but Google claims (and other independent studies have shown) that Google is much much better than most of its competition for returning good results for uncommon queries (the "long tail" if you will).

Edit: I just (briefly) tested this myself. Searching for for my username on Gigablast returned 3 results: 2 of my HN comments and a wordlist. Google on the other hand found 3k results, with the top results being my linkedin and facebook profiles (which I would deem the "best results").

<comment><USER8> Can't agree more with that. I searched for some Cocoa part which was a tie between Google and Gigablast; a torrent which Gigablast could find, but at its origin; and the AD&D Sorcerer which Gigablast couldn't find anything about.

Gigablast might have better results for common queries, but those matter hardly to the typical HN user.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> They definitely deserve some merits.

IMHO, though, i think the normal search engine becomes more like a marketing game now. Same as "most people prefer something other than Coca-Cola in blind test", yet they are still the biggest seller by far.

Unless something is changing in the landscape that affect users behavior (like social web - led by FB, Twitter etc), i wouldn't expect anyone can win against Google in this game without MUCH higher value propositions.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not so sure.

Search is funny that way, you know instantly if a search engine is 'good' or 'fluff'. Most engines out there today are very comparable wrt to the quality of the results, some are better in one domain, others are less susceptible to spammers but overall there is not that much difference, it's comparable to different tastes in icecream. EDIT: once you've got a user they're not likely to switch away from their favourite flavour, it's what they're used to.

But if some group came along that quietly and without fuss presented you with a search engine that had exactly what you were looking at on page one _every time_ I think the current crop would fade faster than you could say 'altavista'.

<comment><USER10> That's what makes technology industry interesting. Things are quite unpredictable and like it or not, none of us knows exactly how things will pan out.

Google's strength is obviously in brand penetration when it comes to search engine. After all, most people outside us hardly even know about "Google Chrome" after making such a huge splash all over the place. (<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4MwTvtyrUQ>).

So, i wouldn't expect them to type in www.cuil.com or WolframAlpha without something is changing in the landscape that alter user behavior.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Seems like the last bit of news was from 2005:

<http://gigablast.com/press.html>

I wonder what he's been doing for the last 4 years?

<comment><AUTHOR> I haven't a clue, but it seems like the site has been a pretty constant performer, I have never seen it 'down', it looks like he has about 50K uniques every day.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> You have to admire his accomplishment, but the presentation grates on me -- the fonts are pretty unreadable and it all seems very rough around the edges. Even if the standard were up to Google's, I wouldn't use it for that reason alone.

<comment><USER13> Interestingly the fonts are actually more readable to me than google's (slightly bigger, slightly more kerning). Perhaps he's only testing on linux - and I'm also on linux.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> They should fix their frontpage if they want to impress international users. I was thoroughly unimpressed when I searched for my last name ('grytøyr') and saw that it became 'gryt?yr' and included search results for 'gryt'.

However, searching for the same from the result page works, so it appears to be just a charset bug with the frontpage (which I've notified them about).

</comment><comment><USER15> > Gigablast databases are scalable to 200 billion pages with minimal hardware. > (100,000 servers)

While that's obviously a ton of pages, I've just never heard someone call 100,000 servers a minimal amount of hardware. Different points of view I suppose.

<comment><AUTHOR> In the 'rants' ( <http://www.gigablast.com/rants.html> ) there is a lot of background information, he says he originally released when he had only 8 servers.

Also, there is no way he has 100,000 servers, he never took in outside capital. I think that part should be read as 'it scales to 100,000 servers), probably wildly optimistic since I highly doubt there is a gigablast implementation anywhere that has that many servers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> > Gigablast plans to be the best and most popular search engine on the > internet within the next year and if you are interested in being part of > such a business then this is the place for you!

Copyright © 2000-2005 Gigablast, Inc

</comment><comment><USER17> while clicking around this reminds me of early google, however after a few results - I can already strongly suggest ways to game the system, first it ranks to heavy off of keywords in the domain name etc..

<comment><USER18> I used gigablast for a couple of searches and it just didn't give me the results I was looking for. I think I will stick with google until I find something that is _consistantly_ more reliable

<comment><AUTHOR> You nailed it there, that is the key. And when such a thing comes around we'll see how strong that google brand really is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Well, it passed the ego-search test with grace. I almost thought people had given up on a search. There's just so much more you can do than what Google does.

</comment><comment><USER20> I liked the subnavigation "Giga Bits" link.</comment>